Krantos said:
I'm probably going to be flayed alive for this, but I really like the Hobbit movies more than the Lord of the Rings ones. I think they are more cohesive and (while occasionally silly) better put together.
etc.
If you drink the hemlock I will maybe also drink it with you. Kudos mate, it's refreshing to find somebody sharing my views word for word.
I for one think that Hobbit 3 is a masterpiece, not only because it finally surpasses the old artworks inspired by the books, presenting a coherent (for once) epic and mysterious Middle Earth, but also because it achieves that while telling the Hobbit, which isn't particularly Silmarillon material. Here's a short rundown of what I think of the entire series:
The books:
- Hobbit: it's a satire of an epic journey. It's always presented from the perspective of Bilbo, a typical englishman more fond of tea and tobacco than dragons. He is the essence of an innocent race in a land of dark history. His kindness and humility is his main strength, not swords. An invisible hero who plays a big part in a much bigger story. Meanwhile, the dwarves end up doing next to nothing and become anti-heroes by the end. Honestly, the movie gives them a heck of a lot more credit than the book. Wherever they go, they stir up trouble, everything gets solved either by Bilbo, or by some "Deus ex new guy". I remember laughing my ass off when Smaug get's killed by a completely lucky single arrow and the epic battle is reduced to a blunt object to the head, and then the eagles show up. Then the poor hero goes back home where he finds his house auctioned because he was thought dead. Yes it's a silly parody of every epic story ever told. And I loved it.
- LoTR: how Tolkien managed to link the Hobbit to this is nothing short of a miracle. What's more amazing is that he did so by using the exact same tools. You always have the feel that there is more out there, that you only see a small part of the world, during a small part of an epic history. Every mound, every hill, every forest is foreboding, it has some dark history. Most is hinted, nothing is explained. You have the same sense of awe that the hobbits have. There are so many references to WW2 that you get the sense of some simple peasants thrown into Stalingrad, facing Apocalypse while being completely unaware that their small parts are on par with the old tales of say Alexander Nevsky. It's no wonder that these are probably the best books ever written.
The movies:
LoTR: while they benefit from the epic storyline of the books, they miss the mark as movies. All of the atmosphere of the books is wiped out. Some main actors are very poorly chosen (the Hobbits in particular). For example, switch the actors of Boromir and Aragorn and suddenly you have a twice better movie. Everything looks modern, dirty, fake. The extra scenes are painful to see. Yet there are some good parts.
- Fellowship was the best. The Shire is perfect, Moria sublime. Elrond, Galadriel, Boromir, Gandalf, all perfect. The only flaws (upon reading the books) is NOT the absence of Tom Bombadil, but that of the Barrows section, and Glorfindel (not Arwen) saving Frodo. Still, so good it made me buy the books the very next day.
- TTT: I could flaw this and that, but Gollum and the battle of Helm's Deep more than compensate what's wrong with this movie.
- ROTK: No, no, no, no, no. Heck no. The only good part is the final charge of the Rohan. Else, total and utter failure.
Hobbit: I'll start with the main thing: bravo for choosing the actors. All amazing!!! Ichiban! Not one weak name, not a single face which would look out of place in the books.
- 1: doesn't start bad. In fact, the only problems I can think of is the dinner plate washing dance and the Mountain Giants battle scene which both seem forced. Yes, the trolls where in the book (although the scene is somewhat different).
- 2: I think we can all agree that the series could've been shortened to only 2 movies. But, given the context of people already knowing LoTR, the director had no choice but to make the dwarves more badass than in the books. Hence the battle with Smaug, hence the entire Laketown detail bullshit. At least let's all agree that the entire love triangle was completely needless.
- 3: wow boy, finally. This is how ROTK should've been like. The short scenes with Smaug are an homage to the paintings and the movie doesn't waste too much time in killing him. I don't even regret anymore the nudge-nudge-wink-wink manner in which he died in the book. There are flaws, I feel that the movie was a bit cut in places, and I guess that the Director's Cut version will fix that. Even more than that, the movie actually rounds up all the previously needless details about the Laketown folk and the love triangle. It builds up on them and integrates them into a story worthy not of the Hobbit, but of the bigger LoTR itself. The only scene where I rolled my eyes was the one with Thorin hearing voices (sound design problem, not the scene itself). Apart from that, Peter Jackson and his team are bloody geniuses for what they've achieved.